From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Finnerty, Jim" <jfinnert(at)amazon(dot)com> |
Cc: | Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: parse partition strategy string in gram.y |
Date: | 2022-10-24 16:13:17 |
Message-ID: | 20221024161317.3ywktkv2ghqpp4as@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-Oct-24, Finnerty, Jim wrote:
> Is there a reason why HASH partitioning does not currently support
> range partition bounds, where the values in the partition bounds would
> refer to the hashed value?
Just lack of an implementation, I suppose.
> The advantage of hash partition bounds is that they are not
> domain-specific, as they are for ordinary RANGE partitions, but they
> are more flexible than MODULUS/REMAINDER partition bounds.
Well, modulus/remainder is what we have. If you have ideas for a
different implementation, let's hear them. I suppose we would have to
know about both the user interface and how it would internally, from two
perspectives: how does tuple routing work (ie. how to match a tuple's
values to a set of bound values), and how does partition pruning work
(ie. how do partition bounds match a query's restriction clauses).
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Christensen | 2022-10-24 16:29:19 | Moving forward with TDE |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-10-24 16:00:42 | Re: Decoupling antiwraparound autovacuum from special rules around auto cancellation |